Nav Can customer newsletter

charlie_g · Post by **charlie_g** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 8:40 am

http://www.navcanada.ca/ContentDefiniti ... 005_en.pdf

Murphy · Post by **Murphy** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 2:26 pm

Pure drivel!

NavCan has hired the spin doctors to make the "customer" feel better about more fees.

kilpicki · Post by **kilpicki** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 3:04 pm

Who is the head man at Nav Can?

Is it the same guy there as when they frst broke off from TC?

I always liked this story. My bud went to work for First Air in Ottawa on the 727's years ago and found the APU were always left running when everyone went home for the night. He asked why and was told just leave them run.

Turns out they were owned by the wife of one of the directers of First Air and she was paid for every hr run.

This is the guy we turned Nav Canada over to, a true business man.

charlie_g · Post by **charlie_g** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 12:33 am

kilpicki wrote:the APU were always left running when everyone went home for the night.

What does it cost to run an APU per hour?

charlie_g · Post by **charlie_g** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 5:57 pm

charlie_g wrote:
kilpicki wrote:the APU were always left running when everyone went home for the night.
What does it cost to run an APU per hour?

No answer. Ok.

My point being, your friend's "story" is ridiculous. There's no way a corporation is going to allow the expense of running an APU all night long to be incurred without some reason other than someone's wife getting paid for every hour it runs? I guess there are no limits to how people will try and slag Nav Can mgmt?

From First Air's web site:

-First Air is wholly owned by the 9,000 Inuit of northern Quebec, through Makivik Corp., created to invest proceeds of the 1975 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.
-Makivik Corporation, a non-profit company, purchased First Air in 1990.

FamilyGuy · Post by **FamilyGuy** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 1:21 am

O Charlie, Charlie, Charlie....tsk tsk tsk. You have sooooo much to learn about so called "business".

Why don't you start by looking up what some of the Manitoba area Bands were doing with Taxpayer money....like funding "healing" cruises for Band Elders etc etc etc. Then the Gov found out and cut em off.

Whenever $$$ is involved you have no idea the lengths people will go to get more....

Hornblower · Post by **Hornblower** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 6:57 pm

Charlie is right, ... Kilpiki, that is a ridiculous rumour.

Of course anyone who has worked with or for Bradley, Jamison, Campbell, Shannon, Doyle, and not the least, Crichton, (et al) would tend to believe all the ridiculous rumours.

The rumour that any one of the above mentioned, were anything but unscrupulous people, is totally unbelievable.

Pratt · Post by **Pratt** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 7:16 pm

hornblower wrote:Charlie is right, ... Kilpiki, that is a ridiculous rumour.

Of course anyone who has worked with or for Bradley, Jamison, Campbell, Shannon, Doyle, and not the least, Crichton, (et al) would tend to believe all the ridiculous rumours.

The rumour that any one of the above mentioned, were anything but unscrupulous people, is totally unbelievable.

Good thing that you mentioned that as a rumour, otherwise it would be getting pretty close to slandering those folks.

Hornblower · Post by **Hornblower** » Sun Jan 01, 2006 8:42 am

[quote="Pratt
Good thing that you mentioned that as a rumour, otherwise it would be getting pretty close to slandering those folks.[/quote]

Not slander. I was just indicating the type of rumour I would be likely to believe, as opposed to the type of rumour that Charlie would tend to believe, ... that being: that Nav Canada management is altruistic and holds the interests of GA dear to it's heart.

Charlie seems to be too quick to support NC management ethics regardless of how they conduct their business, and irregardless of the damage done to levels of service, GA, or aviation safety. (IMO)

charlie_g · Post by **charlie_g** » Sun Jan 01, 2006 11:42 pm

hornblower wrote:... that being: that Nav Canada management is altruistic and holds the interests of GA dear to it's heart.

I`ve not once claimed that NC mgmt holds GA interests close to their heart. My only claim was that NC mgmt`s goal is to run the ANS more like a business than a gov`t dept, and that that approach requires all users to pay a representative share of the costs.

(let`s not beat that dead horse again though)

charlie_g · Post by **charlie_g** » Sun Jan 01, 2006 11:44 pm

hornblower wrote: NC management ethics

I think the past two or three years (worldwide) have shown that `management ethics`more often than not is an oxymoron.

bigfssguy · Post by **bigfssguy** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 8:28 am

In NC's defence things have improved drastically since the TC days. When it was run like a government agency the equipment was old the working conditions bad and the pay horrible (that is in comparison to other ANS's). Since they took over the countries ANS is no longer a drag on our taxes and that would be yours and mine. It's now pay for use, i know you GA fellas hate this since you used to get it for free. But really if you go to the carnival you have to pay to ride the ferris wheel you aren;t expecting Mr. Martin to show up with free tickets. The company is run better and more efficiently. They have spent hundreds of millions on new technologies ensuring that we don't go the way of the FAA. That is starting to bottleneck due to antiquated equipment and practices that can't keep up with todays aviation world.

You have to remember that NC is accountable to you the users now as opposed to the government so it has to be run properly like all succesful businesses should. This is why they put out the newsletter to keep the users more informed to what is happening behind our closed doors. If you have issue with anything that navCan does you are allowed to use the complaint system we have in place and that will give you answers. NavCan is more or less transparent these days they give everyone , all users a chance to voice your opinions to any changes. I'm not saying we are perfect, we are definately far from that but we are doing our best to make the whole system better for everyone

P.S.: I'm not a manager, i'm a simple FSS, so don't try to blame this on NC management drivel, i don't have that course yet...lol

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:45 am

you GA fellas hate this since you used to get it for free

I'm trying to think of a nice way to say F*CK RIGHT OFF but I am having difficulty doing so.

When a private pilot commits aviation, first thing he has to do, to have a dollar to spend on aviation, is to earn TWO F*CKING DOLLARS because of the unbelievable income taxes in this communist country.

Then, he goes to buy some avgas for his bugsmasher, which again is HEAVILY F*CKING TAXED.

So please, try to recover from your terminal cranial-rectal inversion. GA pays it's way in this country, over and over and over again.

Just because NavCan was too stupid to negotiate a piece of the tax revenue that GA pays every flight, doesn't justify a TRIPLE F_CKING TAX from you bozos.

Now, did I use any words that you didn't understand? GA is already double-taxed in this stupid communist country, and you want to impose a third (triple) tax, claiming all the while that we "don't pay our way".

Do you intentionally attempt to be obnoxious and offensive, or is it just a natural gift?

charlie_g · Post by **charlie_g** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 12:02 pm

When a private pilot commits aviation, first thing he has to do, to have a dollar to spend on aviation, is to earn TWO F*CKING DOLLARS because of the unbelievable income taxes in this communist country.

And the income taxes we pay to the federal government go towards financing NC in what way? In NO way at all, you moron. Income taxes have NOTHING to do with NC.

And by the way, the highest income tax bracket in the country, which I am in, ate away a total of 30% of my income this year. I'm talking income taxes only, not all deductions. So the 2:1 claim is a bit out of whack.

Since your tact with Internet posts suggests that you do not have the intelligence to ever achieve an income within that tax bracket, I will explain something else to you. The "50%" tax rate that most people think is charged in Canada actually never exceeds 43%. And that 43% is called a "marginal rate", which is only applied to income earned beyond a certain level. So nobody ever pays more than 43% on PART of their income.

Just because NavCan was too stupid to negotiate a piece of the tax revenue that GA pays every flight, doesn't justify a TRIPLE F_CKING TAX from you bozos.

I would venture a guess that it was more a case of the gov't saying "thanks, but we're going to keep the tax revenue" as opposed to NC being "too stupid" to negotiate a piece of a it. Wouldn't be the first time tax revenues are collected and then diverted. Get off your ass and vote if you don't like the way the federal government handles your tax dollars. I know I'm going to.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 12:37 pm

you do not have the intelligence to ever achieve an income within that tax bracket

I hope you do a better job at work than you do here. I strongly suspect that I pay more in taxes every year than you earn, hence the great offence I take when someone insults me by telling me "I don't pay my way". I might mention that I am a graduate engineer, Queen's University at Kingston, class of '86. I strongly suspect I have studied more mathematics and physics that you will ever know exist. How is your knowledge of graduate-level non-deterministic control theory? Filtering and estimation? Bessel functions? Partial differential equations? Abstract algebra? Epsilon-delta proofs? Complex analysis? Riemannian geometry? Manifold theory? Sheesh.

When NavCan used to be part of the government it was funded by general revenue.

It isn't my fault that NavCan negotiated a poor deal with the government when it was created. In my opinion, NavCan should receive at least part of the aviation fuel excise tax. But that isn't the deal NavCan negotiated.

So, I think we agree NavCan made a mistake. And you want me to pay for it. Sorry, bud, that's not how the private sector works.

Welcome to the private sector, where you are responsible for your screwups, not the taxpayer.

charlie_g · Post by **charlie_g** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 12:51 pm

Hedley wrote:
When NavCan used to be part of the government it was funded by general revenue.

Paul Martin would love to talk your ear off about all the tax cuts his (and former) Liberal governments have brought in over the years. Billions upon billions in cuts. Obviously some of those tax cuts were possible because now it is avaition users and not the government financing an ANS with an operating budget of around $1B/yr.

Murphy · Post by **Murphy** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 7:18 pm

EVERY time I buy a litre of Avgas I pay the federal goverment for Transport Canada services. Up until 9 years ago that included ANS. When Navcan took ANS over I did not see a reduction in the excise tax on avgas.
I have never got a "free ride" to fly a private aircraft in Canada. The fuel excise tax has been around for many more years than Navcan has.
What Navcan is now doing to private aviation is double taxation. That is, adding user fees to the existing excise fuel tax.
Then when I see the fees, that I HAVE to pay, used to produce glossy pieces of cr#p that are intended to "educate" the customer, I just want to puke! That publication, along with the drivel that is produced inhouse in effort to brainwash the employees, is a pure waste of the users money.
It seems that there is no limit to the empire that Crichton has built for himself and his cronies that used to work at First Air. Yes folks, nepotism is alive and thriving at Navcan.
Navcan does nothing for general aviation. Navcan would love to see general aviation die.
The Navcan board of directors are in it for the money . The Navcan managers are in it for the bonus at the end of the year.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 8:02 pm

Hedley :

You are wasting your time with Charlie_G, remember this comment by that as.hole?

" 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. "

Rather than waste time arguing with him why not just ignore him like I do?

Cat