Nav Canada, why?

[Cat Driver]

I guess I'm just a simple minded commoner that has lost touch with the new reality.

However for decades I never had to pay any fees for service from TC or for air traffic control, it all came out of the taxes I paid to Ottawa yet now I am forced to pay a fee to Nav Canada for an airplane that has yet to fly one minute this year.

The reason I must pay this fee is so I can sell the airplane and to sell it I must have a Cof A that is valid which means the fee has to be paid to Nav Canada even though I have not flown it.

So how come Ottawa can waste billions on corrupt schemes and useless things like gun registration and we have to pay fees to get service from TC and Nav Canada?

It is this type of Government missmanagement that drives the underground economy.

Cat

[Hedley]

how come Ottawa can waste billions on corrupt schemes and useless things

Because most Canadians are apathetic cowards. They are lazy and frightened of change, frightened of a challenge, scared of their own shadows, and lack the courage to toss a corrupt government out of office.

Because of this cowardice and apathy, we end up with double and triple taxation.

Where does all the tax money on avgas go? To general revenue, of course. The management of Nav Canada was too inept to successfully argue for their slice of the avgas tax, and so you end up paying tax again to Nav Canada. Tell NavCan when they come for your money, that you already gave it to the feds, and NavCan should go ask the feds for the taxes you've already paid to operate your aircraft.

The government taxes excessively and in return provides very poor service to the taxpayers.

[charlie_g]

So how come Ottawa can waste billions on corrupt schemes and useless things like gun registration and we have to pay fees to get service from TC and Nav Canada?

It is this type of Government missmanagement that drives the underground economy.

Cat

Cat, finally something we can agree on? Were it not for $500M on cancelling a helicopter contract here, $1B for HRDC there, the gun registry you mentioned, sponsorship, and god knows what else the media hasn't yet uncovered, there'd be a whole shitload of things that our tax dollars could be covering.

Anyone read the one about the caregiver program, designed to allow people to spend time with dying relatives? The government so far has spent $69M administering the program, and has paid out $11M in benefits. $6.20 of administration for every $1 paid in benefits. Gee, that's great value. And probably symptomatic of dozens of other government programs.

It is atrocious.

[North Shore]

Am I missing something here? The government used to provide a service to aircraft owners that was paid for out of general revenue; it is now moving to a user-pay philosophy, so that Granny Jones from Duncan, who has never been on an aeroplane in her life doesn't have to pay for a service that she doesn't use, and people are getting bent out of shape about it?

[trey kule]

North Shore wrote:

Am I missing something here? The government used to provide a service to aircraft owners that was paid for out of general revenue; it is now moving to a user-pay philosophy

Yes you are missing something. If you took a minute to read the threads above you would notice the mention of fuel tax......It disappeared.
The government guys, snorkle, snorkle, chuckle chuckle, took the tax money and ran. Then came up with this great user pay thing...and boneheads like you bought it hook line and sinker.
Look. If we are to pay fees, then there should not be other fees, levies, taxes, charges, or an advertising budget to sell us on this stuff.

[Wadd]

Yes you are missing something. If you took a minute to read the threads above you would notice the mention of fuel tax......It disappeared.
The government guys, snorkle, snorkle, chuckle chuckle, took the tax money and ran. Then came up with this great user pay thing...and boneheads like you bought it hook line and sinker.
Look. If we are to pay fees, then there should not be other fees, levies, taxes, charges, or an advertising budget to sell us on this stuff.

Then the question shouldn't be posed to nav canada and why they are charging you.. it should be to the government and where that money went.

[Chop&Drop]

It gets worse boys, Nav Canada now wants to introduce a pay as you go scheme for GA. The worst is that they only want to introduce this at 8 airports in Canada. In Vancouver CYVR including the waterdrome CAM9, Edmonton CYEG, Calgary CYYC, Winnipeg CYWG, Pearson CYYZ, Ottawa CYOW, Trudeau CYUL and Halifax CYHZ. So this is my question, am I getting a better service by going to one of these airports compared to other controlled airports? The aswer is NO!

And they want to charge these fees only to aircraft on the first departure of the day, so for example I leave Ottawa (get charged) and fly to Toronto and then leave back for Ottawa (get charged again). I've now paid the Nav Canada fee twice. However the next day I take-off from Ottawa (pay fee) and do touch and go's all day and shoot the ILS a few times I only pay once.

This government is going to nickle and dime us unitl were broke. Pay $55 to TC for my medical processing fee. Then pay for my AIM (which I used to get for free when it was the AIP). Pay landing fees for operating at these airports and MANY MANY more. It's RIDICULUS!

For referance you may view:
http://www.copanational.org/non-members/index.htm

[trey kule]

Then the question shouldn't be posed to nav canada and why they are charging you.. it should be to the government and where that money went.

Point taken.

[Airtids]

Take a look at the link from Chop'n'drop. That's where COPA has been.

[trey kule]

"User pay"....its a government spin. You see you take the tax revenues that were paying for the system and put them in general revenues and brag about a balance budget.

Then you establish a "not for profit" corporation and start up the "user pay" philosophy, which like single engine night VFR sounds reasonable enough. You hire those who will not only toe the line but will spout off about how fair user pay really is. And tacticly ignore the tax money that has disappeared.

Now it is only for a few airports. If you believe that give me a PM as I have a bunch of great investments for you . It will expand, The fees will increase, and the justification will be that costs have risen....but guys dont get mad because we are not for profit and really love you.

IF THEY CAN SELL THIS FEE THING IT WILL INCREASE AND MULTIPLY

Those people who have the power to put their hands in our pockets will do so at every opportunity.

Instead of whining and moaning here what we should be discussing is how to constructively block them.

...the poster soon to be previously referred to as Trey Kule

[linecrew]

Cat, the fee for having a valid C of A is the scheme the folks in finance came up with to nail the aircraft that don't fly in controlled airspace or out of an aiport with a tower or FSS. They want to ensure that they get money out of anyone that frikin flies.

I've mentioned this before but there are no pilots in the billing section so they don't give a rat's ass about our complaints...they just want the money. There will never be any sympathy there.

I'm guessing it will keep getting worse as time goes on and more money acquiring plans are conjured up.

[Airtids]

Special COPA Flights NewsFlash



NAV CANADA crosses the line into pay-as-you-go pricing for our sector





In 2004, COPA responded to a NAV CANADA (NC) proposal to raise the annual fee for our sector of aviation (see President’s column June 2004 on our web site http://www.copanational.org/non-members ... June04.htm). Our disagreement was in part because of our long-standing position against any fee as long as we continue to pay the fuel excise tax, but we also pointed out that this is just another in the steps toward even higher fees. We called on the company and indeed the government to take a different approach to the way that the system is funded and in particular for those facilities that are used in support of smaller communities, where many of our members fly.



NC decided to proceed anyway and our annual fee was increased to the current $72 plus GST or HST.



Earlier this year, NC decided to review the rate structure that has been in place since the system was privatized. Arguably, given the changes that have occurred in the industry since the original rate structure was put in place, it was time for a review. However, a key change to the way our sector is charged was proposed in a discussion paper that was circulated by NC. They are under pressure from the airlines for our sector to pay more. To deal with that pressure, the concept of an additional fee for use of specific parts of the system was contemplated. NC refers to it as two-tiered pricing, which is by other names fee-per-service or pay-as-you-go. COPA provided considerable input to justify reducing the current annual fee rather than increasing it further. After all, with cuts in service that have already been made and plans for even more, such as replacing contract weather services with AWOS, it did not seem reasonable to increase our fee. As well, we specifically opposed any form of two-tiered pricing on safety grounds.



Despite COPA’s firm position, NC decided to release a proposal on 2 December for a new daily fee applicable to all aircraft, domestic and foreign, private and commercial, including those that are now exempt from any fee. The new fee would apply for the first time each day that an aircraft departs from any of eight major airports in Canada. We asked NC for clarification of “departure” and we were told that it is defined as a takeoff or a touch and go. For example, if you fly to one of these airports, complete a practice ILS approach and perform a low approach only, there would be no fee. If, instead, you completed the approach with a touch and go, there would be a fee.



This new fee is in addition to the annual fee. When it is fully implemented in 2008, some private owners would pay up to $1272 plus GST or HST per year in NC fees.



COPA is responding strongly against the concept of two-tiered pricing for our sector for several reasons. Firstly, we consider it to be in violation of two charging principles from the Commercialization Act which state: “charges must not be structured in such a way that a user would be encouraged to engage in practices that diminish safety for the purpose of avoiding a charge” and “charges in respect of recreational and private aircraft must not be unreasonable or undue”. Certainly the initial fee, applicable only per day and only to a relatively few number of airports, may seem like it does not affect too many COPA members. However, the International Air Transport Association, who is principally pushing for increases in fees for our sector, was asked for their reaction to the proposal and they said that the proposal is only a good first step. COPA considers this as only the first phase of more to come. It is clear from other countries where pay-as-you-go is in place that the impact on private aviation is severe and largely responsible for its decline. COPA is committed to not let that happen here.



As we go to press, we are engaged in negotiations with NC to change the proposal and we will employ every means available to convince NC to back away from two-tiered pricing. Here is where you can help.



NC has the right in law to introduce any new fees as long as they do not violate the charging principles but they must provide a comment period, which in this case is until 10 February 2006. We urge you to educate yourself on the proposal and our many presentations to NC and the government. Visit our web site for links to all of this information at http://www.copanational.org/non-members/navcanfees.htm and then formulate your own response regarding how the new daily fee will affect you, and send it to NC by one of the following means:



NAV CANADA

P.O. Box 3411, Station “D”

Ottawa, Ontario

Canada K1P 5L6

Attention: Assistant Vice-President, Revenue and Performance Indicators

e-mail: andreaa@navcanada.ca

facsimile 1-613-563-7994



We are at a turning point in the future of our sector and what we pay for provision of all air navigation services. Take the time to help us.