AOPA and Nav Canada's User Fees

[charlie_g]

Dude, who are you trying to kid? Do you honestly think an IFR controller will be all worried about the tower controller's -150 traffic doing touch and go's?? The VFR circuit traffic is under tower control and the IFR controller knows that the tower controller will ensure the VFR traffic is clear of an IFR arrival he has cleared for the approach. May I suggest you review tower VFR control in MANOPS...I think I still have a few copies kicking around.

I take it you're a tower controller then?

I am only speaking from personal experience, and that experience involves towers that coordinate with the terminal based on their circuit traffic in conjunction with the IFR traffic inbound from the terminal. I'm not talking about Pearson, I'm talking about medium-level towers that have VFR traffic in the circuit on a regular basis. I am not making this up, if that's what you're suggesting. At busier towers, at least, they will coordinate with the terminal when it comes to making room in the VFR circuit for IFR inbounds. Maybe that wasn't clear in my other post?

[charlie_g]

" You are paying them.

Your income tax overpayment is still your money. "

Sierra Poppa, I am well aware of that however since I was bankrupted by TC M&M here in Vancouver I do not work in Canada and in that I do not have any overpayment of income taxes where does that leave the payment issue?

Cat

Are there any TC people on here who would care to provide the other side of Cat's TC experience of the past?

Always seems reasonable to get both sides of a story, especially when one side starts calling the other side "maggots".

[Cat Driver]

" Are there any TC people on here who would care to provide the other side of Cat's TC experience of the past?

Always seems reasonable to get both sides of a story, especially when one side starts calling the other side "maggots"."

On the other hand if someone who is willing to ask the DGCA to take them to court for lible for giving that opinion of the character of named TC top management why don't they do so?

So Charlie_G please contact the DGCA and have him personally read all my posts alleging that due to the actions of his top management in the Pacific region and his letter written to me stating clearly that he approves of and supports abuse of power and dishonesty at that level please have him serve me with a writ.

Here once again are my contact details.

Charles William .

Canadian pilot licenses:

AA38841
DO38841

My home address is avaliable under those license numbers.

Just to clarify my opinion once more you tell the DGCA that I would rather be confronted by common street criminals than him or one of his TCCA top managers in my Region, as I would be far safer.

Oh, I forgot he already has that in TC file #5015-12391 that cost Canadian taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars for TC to defend thamselves and lose...

..So Charlie you be a good little boy and get right on this.

. E.

[Cat Driver]

Charlie_G, how are you making out with the DGCA concerning my last post here?

I haven't heard anything from him or you and just wondered what is happening?

Cat

[trey kule]

Cat.

Calling them "maggots". Have to agree with Charlie g on this one.
You have done an incredible disservice to maggots. They are in fact useful in so many ways and only live off dead flesh.

And to Charlie g:

I did try to get my facts straight. Emailed Nav Canada and asked for some figures that were public domain. No reply. Phoned them and asked for them. Told "nope". The figures for Air Canada, receivable aging etc. will not be given out (even though they are a matter of public record).
So I guess we just have to accept your word as unrefutable.

Also, If Nav Canada is really a private separate non-government entity, how is it that they can get revenue Canada to collect for them? do you think rev canada will help me collect for some bills?

You, and others at Nav Canada should take Cat's comments as indicative of the frustration we in GA feel by being financially raped and then having good people like you tell us how we should be thankful.

[Cat Driver]

Trey Kule:

You are absoutely correct, we their employees are negligent when we allow these "maggots" who live off our flesh to be unacountable.

Charlie_G and his ilk are indictive of the mentality that feels they are superior to those of us who are the backbone of the industry that pays their wages.

The difference between myself and the Charlie_G's that post here and the "maggots" within the structure of TCCA is impossible to bridge, I live in a completely different world and I survive in countries and under conditions where they would be like a fish out of water and would probably be unable to survive.

I do not take well to being put up against the wall by these types and will not just allow them to snipe at will from their dark holes.

So how you makin out with the DGCA Charlie_G?

Cat

[wingtip]

" You are paying them.

Your income tax overpayment is still your money. "

Sierra Poppa, I am well aware of that however since I was bankrupted by TC M&M here in Vancouver I do not work in Canada and in that I do not have any overpayment of income taxes where does that leave the payment issue?

Cat

Are there any TC people on here who would care to provide the other side of Cat's TC experience of the past?


Always seems reasonable to get both sides of a story, especially when one side starts calling the other side "maggots".

Due to liability issues, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting to hear from TC on this C. Remember, TC inspectors are paid to keep the Minister off the liability hook. In my experience with them over the years the majority could give a rats ass about safety. They only care about avoiding blame and what will advance their individual status. "Maggots" is actually a pretty accurate name for them. Just because they are the law, that doesn't make them right.

[charlie_g]

I did try to get my facts straight. Emailed Nav Canada and asked for some figures that were public domain. No reply. Phoned them and asked for them. Told "nope". The figures for Air Canada, receivable aging etc. will not be given out (even though they are a matter of public record).
So I guess we just have to accept your word as unrefutable.

If the figures are truly public domain or in the public record, then they are available in places other than via NC. That's the definition of public domain, isn't it? Have you googled any of it? The figures were all over the news when AC went into bankruptcy.

[charlie_g]

Charlie_G, how are you making out with the DGCA concerning my last post here?

I haven't heard anything from him or you and just wondered what is happening?

Cat

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not terribly interested in using my spare time to sift through TC documents. I was hoping someone on here from the TC side would give me the synopsis of your tale of woe. I'll keep the info from the post though, should the urge ever strike to delve further.

[charlie_g]

Also, If Nav Canada is really a private separate non-government entity, how is it that they can get revenue Canada to collect for them? do you think rev canada will help me collect for some bills?

Regarding who collects what for whom -- I can hardly follow what's been claimed so far in this post.

Medical fees are collected by Transport, correct? I get a medical 'bill' from Transport, and I make my cheque out to the Receiver General for Canada. What is NC's connection to that?

I don't know the details behind what LH was referring to, but anyone has the ability to collect unpaid amounts for whatever reason through the garnishee process. What is the NC - CRA link? Your gardener could get access to your funds if they had the court's authority behind them. Is that what LH is talking about?

[Hedley]

Charlie: you must think we're awfully stupid, if you think we're going to buy into your fiction that NavCan is completely separate from the government, like any other private corporation. Gimme a break.

NavCan needs to go to their Finance Minister and say, "We want our cut of the fuel excise tax".

If you don't have the balls to do that, well, that's not our problem. If you have insufficient revenue to maintain operations, well then SHUT DOWN like any other private corporation would, hm?

NavCan is just like government-run health care and education - the taxpayer pays an awful lot for precious little when there is a government monopoly running the show.

The incredible arrogance of gov't types that think there is nothing wrong with double, triple and quadruple taxation for the same service ....

[Cat Driver]

This from Charlie_G:

" Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not terribly interested in using my spare time to sift through TC documents. I was hoping someone on here from the TC side would give me the synopsis of your tale of woe. "

Let me give you some advice Charlie_G, I am not going to allow you to sit and make snide remarks coloured to make it look that I am not a professional in this industry who was financially ruined by a few maggots in Transport Canada aided and abbetted by the Director General Civil Aviation.

The facts are documented in TC's own records, you can come on this forum spewing your personal view of aviation and the Government side of it all you want, but when you start making snide posts trying to make me look bad you had better identify just who you really are because I despise cowards like you who sit behind a computer and attack those they haven't got the balls to meet face to face.

So I would suggest you crawl further back in what ever black hole you post from you or I'll find a way to find you..

. .

[charlie_g]

NavCan needs to go to their Finance Minister and say, "We want our cut of the fuel excise tax".

No. Pilots and operators need to go to the Finance Minister and demand that. After all, it's your tax money, isn't it?

If you think your funds have been misappropriated, then do something about it yourself, or get an effective lobbying group together. NC has been around for ten years, and yet the useless tits at COPA have made no progress whatsoever on this front. Perhaps you should be railing against them.

[charlie_g]

The facts are documented in TC's own records, you can come on this forum spewing your personal view of aviation and the Government side of it all you want, but when you start making snide posts trying to make me look bad you had better identify just who you really are because I despise cowards like you who sit behind a computer and attack those they haven't got the balls to meet face to face.

So I would suggest you crawl further back in what ever black hole you post from you or I'll find a way to find you..

I can come on here and spew anything I want -- it's called the Internet. Welcome aboard. You are hardly one to be calling people on snide remarks.

And keep your idle threats to yourself. They are a waste of bandwidth, and only serve to diminsh your credibility.

[Cat Driver]

Charlie_G allow me to resopnd to this:

" And keep your idle threats to yourself. They are a waste of bandwidth, and only serve to diminsh your credibility."

You are dummer than I thought Charlie_G if you think people will just sit and take your crap and not want to meet you face to face.

So listen real close Charlie_G that was not a threat it was a promise, I would like nothing more than meet you face to face just to see what kind of a creature you really are.

So you shove your cowardly comments where the sun don't shine Charlie_G, if you havent got the balls to communicate one on one get off my case.

. E.

[Cat Driver]

Charlie_G as to this..


" I can come on here and spew anything I want -- it's called the Internet. "

Yes, I agree, you can spew anything you want.

But if I were you I would maybe consider the consequences of personal attacks without any concrete facts to back up your spewing.

The internet is not a secure haven for cowards Charlie_G.

. E.

[charlie_g]

But if I were you I would maybe consider the consequences of personal attacks without any concrete facts to back up your spewing.

Sorry, but my asking any TC lurkers to comment on your TC experience hardly qualifies as a personal attack.

Calling people maggots and threatening them for their viewpoints, mind you.... now that's a different story altogether.

[Cat Driver]

If you are so upset about me calling certain people in TC maggots Charlie why don't you send an e-mail to this guy...

preussm@tc.gc.ca

You can tell him that based on the documentation I have in my files I am willing to back up my allegations if he has the balls to contest my allegations.

Now get to work on that Charlie_G, or I and many others here will suspect you are one of them.

Cat

[Hedley]

I hate to break up an entertaining fight but Charlie said:

the useless tits at COPA have made no progress whatsoever

This may surprise you, but we are in complete agreement on your appraisal of the utility of COPA. They do not represent the interests of myself or any other pilot that I know of.

I might suggest that NavCan develop a spine, and tell the gov't that unless it gets a bigger piece of the fuel excise tax, that ATS services in Canada will soon be subject to "rolling blackout" outages, to align NavCan's expenses with it's artificially-constrained revenue.

But that would require that someone at NavCan have some balls, and that's about as likely as someone at COPA developing a spine.

Canadians are such pussies.

[trey kule]

I am finally trying to get unfuzzy as to what is happening here.

1. Fed gov takes our fuel taxes and keeps them
2. We (GA) consider that user pay
3. Nav Can, not getting any of that claims we should pay again
4. Nav Can, is not willing to go to bat for some of those funds
5. COPA is not (?) doing anything to help

So. Unlike TC medical fees where we can simply protest by not paying, what are our options here to see that our fuel taxes go to NC as "paynment for services"

Lets have some positive ideas other than a sponsored public meeting between Cat and Charlie G with an auction of body parts afterward.

[Hedley]

For all the difference it's going to make, you might as well spend your time looking at this:

http://www.christinamodel.com/free.html

It won't help NavCan get any more money, but at least it will improve your mood.

[charlie_g]

I might suggest that NavCan develop a spine, and tell the gov't that unless it gets a bigger piece of the fuel excise tax, that ATS services in Canada will soon be subject to "rolling blackout" outages, to align NavCan's expenses with it's artificially-constrained revenue.

Put yourself in NC's shoes. Why would they bother to try and extract misdirected tax revenue from the feds? Rolling blackouts? What? It's not NC who feels they're being screwed by the government, it's pilots and operators.

NC already has the means to pay their bills through airline passengers' fees. Companies will rarely do anything purely out of the goodness of their hearts, so if you're waiting for NC to go to bat for a cause that it has no stake in (under the present legislation and resulting revenue stream), I would suggest that you're going to be waiting an awfully long time.

As has been said before, most of you do not realize that your beef is with the federal government, not NC. NC is the figurative messenger being shot in this case, and really has no role or interest in recovering gas taxes on your behalf.

Do I get mad at Wpg's city hall for collecting taxes that go towards roads, when I'm already paying a tax at the pumps that was created for that purpose? No, I get mad at the feds for sending that revenue elsewhere. It's the same thing. Know where to direct your beefs and anger.

[trey kule]

Hedley

It did help ..that is until I realized it was my sister!

[charlie_g]

And to Charlie g:

I did try to get my facts straight. Emailed Nav Canada and asked for some figures that were public domain. No reply. Phoned them and asked for them. Told "nope". The figures for Air Canada, receivable aging etc. will not be given out (even though they are a matter of public record).
So I guess we just have to accept your word as unrefutable.

I spent about three minutes on NC's web site and found at least some of the information that I believe you were looking for. Apparently it is in fact readily available:

Regarding payment terms:

All charges are due by the date of the invoice ("the due date"), and payable upon receipt of invoice. However, balances paid within 30 days of the due date will normally not be charged interest, as provided for in subsection 2...

...When payment in full is not received by the 30th day following the due date, NAV CANADA shall charge interest on the amount outstanding and such interest shall be calculated commencing on the first day after the due date and continuing until all outstanding amounts are paid in full.
Interest charged is simple interest calculated daily. Interest shall be calculated at an annual rate of 18 per cent (or 1.5 % monthly).

Regarding exposure to large accounts; looks like changes were implemented in response to AC's defaulting:

The amount of outstanding charges, including both amounts billed and amounts accrued for unbilled charges, for any one customer or group of affiliated companies shall not exceed $4 million at any time. When NAV CANADA determines that the maximum of $4 million may be exceeded, it shall advise the customer that its billing and/or payment frequency shall be increased and/or a refundable deposit may be required as necessary to ensure the maximum is not exceeded.... subsequent to Air Canada’s filing for protection from its creditors, an agreement was reached whereby the Company invoices Air Canada weekly with payment terms of less than one week.

[55+]

I hate to break up an entertaining fight but Charlie said:

the useless tits at COPA have made no progress whatsoever

This may surprise you, but we are in complete agreement on your appraisal of the utility of COPA. They do not represent the interests of myself or any other pilot that I know of.

I might suggest that NavCan develop a spine, and tell the gov't that unless it gets a bigger piece of the fuel excise tax, that ATS services in Canada will soon be subject to "rolling blackout" outages, to align NavCan's expenses with it's artificially-constrained revenue.

But that would require that someone at NavCan have some balls, and that's about as likely as someone at COPA developing a spine.

Canadians are such pussies.

As a retired employee of Nav Canada and prior to the transfer an employee of Transport Canada Aviation let me state the following:

(a)Nav Can operates the Air Navigation system of the Country (b) The Air Navigation system is in essence the security of the Country and(c) the security of the Country will not be jeopardized in any way, shape, form by actions or lack of actions from Nav Canada. Bar none!!!

As for the augments pro/con on user feel, COPA etc…. carry on.