Nav Can Gets Cold Feet

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:15 am

http://www.navcanada.ca/NavCanada.asp?L ... nr0220.xml

N2 · Post by N2 » Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:27 am

Well for once they did the right thing! This user fee structure sucks!

x-wind · Post by **x-wind** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:49 am

Just wanted to make sure - The average pilot like me is NOT a stakeholder? I just want to confirm that its not our comments that held back the fees.

I know its kind of a silly question I just want to make sure I do not have any shares in Nav Canada.

hydro · Post by **hydro** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:00 am

Stakeholder in this context is not the same as Shareholder. Stakeholder usually means anyone who has an interest in the company, such as customers, employees, suppliers, etc. So as an average pilot you are a stakeholder, but not a shareholder.

x-wind · Post by **x-wind** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:04 am

Ok. Thanks a lot I really appreciate the reply.

FamilyGuy · Post by **FamilyGuy** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:19 am

No resolution just yet boys!!!

The way I read that, they are only delaying and rethinking the fee structure...........

Keep lobbying or pony up$$$

Jungle Jim · Post by **Jungle Jim** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:18 pm

I heard that they realized that by 2008 when the daily fee is to double to $10.00 the smaller guys wouldn't be flying out of the 8 airports so the expected revenues would approach zero in those areas.

Wouldn't be surprised if the fee will be applied to more airports when we read about it next time.

Just my $0.02 Cdn

Jim

charlie_g · Post by **charlie_g** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:25 pm

"...The proposed charges represent changes in NAV CANADA’s overall charging methodology, and are not designed to increase the Company’s total revenues."

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:03 pm

changes in NAV CANADA’s overall charging methodology

Is that corporate-speak for:

"Air Canada screwed us out of millions, so private pilots are going to have to make up the shortfall?"

Let me get this straight: NavCan rewards the unscrupulous airlines, and punishes the honest, hard-working private pilots?

charlie_g · Post by **charlie_g** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:07 pm

Hedley wrote:"Air Canada screwed us out of millions, so private pilots are going to have to make up the shortfall?"

Let me get this straight: NavCan rewards the unscrupulous airlines, and punishes the honest, hard-working private pilots?

From my post in another thread:

"...if that's your take on the validity of bankruptcy laws, you're going to have to stand in line behind everyone in this country, in all industries, that has ever been screwed over when someone declared bankruptcy on them. I don't like the laws either, but that doesn't change the fact that NC has NO recourse when it comes to recovering these fees.

For that reason, people need to stop suggesting that NC is somehow doing AC a favour by not going after the fees that were outstanding. They simply cannot go after them, period. End of story."

Hedley, if you disagree, please tell me how NC could go after AC under the bankruptcy laws of the land.

Jungle Jim · Post by **Jungle Jim** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 4:32 pm

Charlie_g,

I think if Nav Canada would have watched their accounts receivables better the hit would not have been as bad as it was. The problem is the Nav canada has never had to run their organization like a business and still doesn't since it's the only game in town.

Jim

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 4:51 pm

Jungle Jim wrote:Charlie_g,

I think if Nav Canada would have watched their accounts receivables better the hit would not have been as bad as it was. The problem is the Nav canada has never had to run their organization like a business and still doesn't since it's the only game in town.

Jim

Correct, they needed to do the ol' YHM ACE heist, block off the planes and state, pay up or no fly...

charlie_g · Post by **charlie_g** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 5:31 pm

Jungle Jim wrote:Charlie_g,

I think if Nav Canada would have watched their accounts receivables better the hit would not have been as bad as it was. The problem is the Nav canada has never had to run their organization like a business and still doesn't since it's the only game in town.

Jim

I don't have the business experience to know what a reasonable point would have been to have taken action such as grounding the planes until fees were paid, but I suppose that would have been an option. Imagine that scenario: NC calls in the debt, AC folds and operations come to a grinding halt. Is it reasonable to suggest that NC should have created a mini-9/11 by grounding the country's largest airline for who knows how long? They obviously didn't have the money to pay the bills. How would they (AC) have resumed operations in that scenario?

I disagree about NC not being run like a business. Ask anybody who was there when TC was running the ANS, and listen to them tell you what cheap screws NC is by comparison. They do run it like a business, because they have no choice. They are funded by fees plain and simple, and they must live within those means.

The monopoly status does not make it cut-throat though. Is there an alternative to a monopolized ANS?

Jungle Jim · Post by **Jungle Jim** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:51 am

Charlie,

In my opinion AC is just another non paying customer and should have been viewed as bad debt and steps should have been taken to minimize the the losses at Nav Canada. If they folded the slack would have been picked up by some one else just like it happened with Swiss Air a while ago. The Swiss are probably better off for having let their national airline fold.

If AC is not a viable operation financially it should fold just like any other business.

SierraPoppa · Post by **SierraPoppa** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 8:43 am

Hedley wrote:
changes in NAV CANADA’s overall charging methodology
Is that corporate-speak for:

"Air Canada screwed us out of millions, so private pilots are going to have to make up the shortfall?"

Let me get this straight: NavCan rewards the unscrupulous airlines, and punishes the honest, hard-working private pilots?

In a word YES!!!

Perhaps Nav Canada didn't go after Air Canada too hard because Air Canada has a person on the Board of Directors at Nav Canada.

Perhaps Nav Canada is changing their fee structure because the airlines want GA to share more of the load. After all the airlines do have four members on the Board of Directors at Nav Canada.

Perhaps it's the airlines that are running Nav Canada!!!

Quoted from the Nav Canada Corporate Brochure.
http://www.navcanada.ca/ContentDefiniti ... ure_en.pdf

OUR STRUCTURE
NAV CANADA was founded by four “members”, each with representation on our Board of Directors:
• The Airlines (four directors);
• The Federal Government (three directors);
• Unions (two directors);
• Business and General Aviation (one director).

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:28 am

So if Air Canada doesn't have to pay, why should the rest of us?

What's NavCan going to do if you don't pay? Nothing, like they did with Air Canada?

IMNSHO, IFR guys should pay, VFR guys shouldn't. If that causes NavCan to shut down some Towers and FSS's, oh well, it was going to happen sooner or later anyways.

Just like VFR guys can't afford Ferraris, neither can they afford to support NavCan.

SierraPoppa · Post by **SierraPoppa** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:29 pm

Hedley wrote:
Just like VFR guys can't afford Ferraris, neither can they afford to support NavCan.

Interesting if not stupid statement.

Who says VFR guys can't afford Ferraris? I know a few that could buy out Ferrari not just one or two cars.

Before you ask, no I am not about to name them.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:11 pm

How about Lamborghinis?

Here are some VFR aircraft for you to look at, that are worth a heluva
lot more than a Ferrari (I know, it's my hangar):

Most VFR-only pilots don't have the budget that IFR pilots do, with
their fancy aircraft like our Cessna 421B:

So if I'm so stupid compared to you, why do I have so much
nicer aircraft, cars, and motorcycles than you?

I say again: most VFR-only pilots, who don't have the budget to
upgrade to (incredibly boring, IMHO) IFR straight-and-level machines,
don't collectively have the millions that NavCan wants to make
up for their past screwups. They'll just avoid NavCan entirely.

On the subject of "big money" pilots, I have two quite rich friends:

Todd, a retired parter from Goldman Sachs (a statistician by
training) who owns a Sea Fury (was #8 at reno last year),
a T-28, a clip-wing 3-blade geared T-6, new decathlon, and
god knows what else. He sold his cherry turbine -10 Aero
Commander to buy a Citation. He has an FAA ATP and
500 foot ICAS, and is worth around us$100M.

Bart, who's company Ebay purchased with a crapload of option
in the nutty tech days, is worth around a half a billion usd. He
owns a lear, a turbine helicopter of some sort (I'm not really
into helicopters) and I've given him some instruction on his
Columbia 400. I don't think his Lear and Columbia are VFR-only

SierraPoppa · Post by **SierraPoppa** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:32 pm

Hedley wrote: So if I'm so stupid compared to you, why do I have so much
nicer aircraft, cars, and motorcycles than you?

Did I say you were stupid? NO!!

I said it was a stupid statement and stand behind that.

What an incredibly childish reply, note I said childish not stupid.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:41 pm

an incredibly childish reply

I thought it was pretty funny. Some people have no sense of humour, I guess

P.S. What's wrong with being childish? Children like toys, and gosh, I think I'm being honest when I say that I have some really great toys.

Here's an interesting quote for you, my oh-so-mature friend:

Many who knew Einstein were most struck not by his intellect, but his cheerfulness, child-like demeanor, agreeable good-humor, playfulness, plain-spokenness, and absent-mindedness.

I guess Einstein should have tried to be more mature like you, huh?

You've probably never heard of Richard Feynman - Nobel prize winner
in Physics - but he was brilliant beyond belief and incredibly childish.

Read Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! and see for yourself.

trey kule · Post by **trey kule** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:49 pm

Family Guy wrote

No resolution just yet boys!!!

The way I read that, they are only delaying and rethinking the fee structure

I got the same opinion. The delay, however, is typical government strategy. Everyone gives a sigh of relief and then forgets about it and they implement it a little later.

Please guys, dont stop campaigning against this until it is, in fact, DEAD.

SierraPoppa · Post by **SierraPoppa** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:00 pm

Hedley wrote:
an incredibly childish reply
I thought it was pretty funny. Some people have no sense of humour, I guess

P.S. What's wrong with being childish? Children like toys, and gosh, I think I'm being honest when I say that I have some really great toys.

Here's an interesting quote for you, my oh-so-mature friend:

Many who knew Einstein were most struck not by his intellect, but his cheerfulness, child-like demeanor, agreeable good-humor, playfulness, plain-spokenness, and absent-mindedness.
I guess Einstein should have tried to be more mature like you, huh?

You've probably never heard of Richard Feynman - Nobel prize winner
in Physics - but he was brilliant beyond belief and incredibly childish.

Read Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! and see for yourself.

Hmmm, seems I struck a nerve.

FamilyGuy · Post by **FamilyGuy** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:07 pm

Try to stay focused there fellers

What's really interesting about ACA owing and subsequently not paying NC their fees (due to bankruptcy) is didn't Canada3000 do the same thing many months earlier....

Now, I'm not a business degree wizard, but it seems to me that if the industry is in trouble (which it clearly was) - I might want to have my services paid up front instead of giving lots of time to accumulate fees that might be lost forever if anyone goes bankrupt. But that's just my opinion.....

BTW I don't think that really motivates the fee restructuring anyway. SeirraPoppa nailed the motivation about 8 post ago...before the mudslining began

Longtimer · Post by **Longtimer** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:14 pm

Jungle Jim wrote:I heard that they realized that by 2008 when the daily fee is to double to $10.00 the smaller guys wouldn't be flying out of the 8 airports so the expected revenues would approach zero in those areas.

Wouldn't be surprised if the fee will be applied to more airports when we read about it next time.

Just my $0.02 Cdn

Jim

Of course that might just be what they are / were hoping for. Eliminating the mix of high speed and low speed traffic at the major airports is exactly what is needed to improve the overall service for the commercial passengers / airlines. Perhaps the days of a A320 having to hang up so as to allow a C172 to join the circuit would be gone.

hydro · Post by **hydro** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:30 pm

My understanding is that NavCanada had a role in Jetsgo's demise coming when it did rather than a few weeks later. They supposedly either wanted payment up front, or within 7 days. I also seem to recall a couple references with Mr Leblanc saying NavCanada forced his hand.
So perhaps they've started to learn from past mistakes?